TMI Blog1993 (9) TMI 155X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rly, for the assessment year 1984-85, the original assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 23-7-1986 allowing a deduction of Rs. 26,694 on account of interest paid to Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Subsequently, the assessments were reopened under section 147 to rope in certain escaped income pursuant to the filing of the revised returns by the assessee under the Amnesty Scheme. In the revised assessments also the deduction in respect of the interest paid to Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., was found to have been allowed. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax on a perusal of the wealth-tax records of the assessee came to the conclusion that the deduction allowed in respect of the interest payments was not warranted as there was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but the learned Commissioner of Income-tax has proceeded to invoke the jurisdiction on the basis of the wealth-tax records which are not records under the Income-tax Act. 4. Smt. Susie B. Varghese, the learned departmental representative submitted that income-tax and wealth-tax are supplementary and complementary to each other and, therefore, there was nothing wrong for the Commissioner of Income-tax to have looked into the wealth-tax records in framing an opinion about the erroneous nature of the order of the Assessing Officer. 5. We do not accept the contention of the revenue because the Explanation to section 263(1) as inserted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 with effect from 1-4-1988 is to the effect that "record" inclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Deduction of interest allowed in the original assessments for both the years was not a subject-matter of reassessment. The theory that once an assessment is reopened, the whole issue is at large and the original assessment gets wiped out is no longer a good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Sun Engg. Works (P.) Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297. Therefore, the argument goes that as the reassessment is only in relation to incomes that escaped assessment in the original assessment, the matters that were settled in the original assessment had reached their finality in the original assessment itself and cannot be said to have been reopened and redetermined on the same basis in the reassessment. Viewed in this conte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
